A. If any person wrongfully and fraudulently use, dispose of, conceal or embezzle any money, bill, note, check, order, draft, bond, receipt, bill of lading or any other personal property, tangible or intangible, which he shall have received for another or for his employer, principal or bailor, or by virtue of his office, trust, or employment, or which shall have been entrusted or delivered to him by another or by any court, corporation or company, he shall be guilty of embezzlement. Proof of embezzlement shall be sufficient to sustain the charge of larceny. Any person convicted hereunder shall be deemed guilty of larceny and may be indicted as for larceny and upon conviction shall be punished as provided in § 18.2-95 or § 18.2-96.
B. A prosecution for a violation of this section may be had in (i) any place of venue under Article 2 (§ 19.2-244 et seq.) of Chapter 15 of Title 19.2 or (ii) any county or city where the victim of the embezzlement resides.
Code 1950, § 18.1-109; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1979, c. 349; 1994, c. 555; 2003, c. 733; 2024, c. 475.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
113
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case:
Bruhn v. Commonwealth, 559 S.E.2d 880 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
Bruhn v. Commonwealth, 559 S.E.2d 880 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 82× “" The clauses, "may be indicted as for larceny" and "shall be sufficient to sustain the charge," were inserted into the embezzlement statute to make plain that the 1919 revisions did not change case law.”
Angela Maye Holt v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 783 S.E.2d 546 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 7× “2-178 and embezzlement in violation of Code § 18.2-111. On appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her convictions.”
Commonwealth v. Bruhn, 570 S.E.2d 866 (Va. 2002).
· cites it 22× “In this appeal, we consider whether the Court of Appeals of Virginia correctly determined that, as a result of amendments enacted in 1994 to Code § 18.2-111, proof of embezzlement, as defined by that statute, will not sustain a conviction under an indictment charging grand…”
Bragg v. Commonwealth, 593 S.E.2d 558 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 22× “David Gordon Bragg (appellant) was convicted in a bench trial of five counts of embezzlement, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-111 and 18.2-95. [1] On appeal, he does not contest his general guilt, but contends the trial court erred in finding him guilty of five counts instead of…”
George v. Commonwealth, 655 S.E.2d 43 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 17× “A jury convicted Francis Habo George (appellant) on four counts of embezzlement in violation of Code § 18.2-111. 1 On appeal appellant contends: 1) the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the embezzlement charges because the Virginia tax code 2 established a specific offense…”
Roberts v. Commonwealth, 337 S.E.2d 255 (Va. 1985).
· cites it 12× “In failing to require the Commonwealth’s Attorney, in response to a motion filed pursuant to Code § 18.2-111, to designate in writing the statute upon which the Commonwealth intended to rely in seeking a conviction.”
Hunt v. Commonwealth, 614 S.E.2d 668 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 16× “The Court reversed the conviction, however, holding that “proof of embezzlement, as defined by [Code § 18.2-111], will not sustain a conviction under an indictment charging grand larceny under Code § 18.”
Gwaltney v. Commonwealth, 452 S.E.2d 687 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 12× “Veronica Lois Gwaltney appeals her conviction for embezzlement in violation of Code § 18.2-111. Gwaltney contends the trial court erred in failing to suppress an inculpatory statement she made to police.”
Brown v. Commonwealth, 692 S.E.2d 271 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “Brown (“Brown”) appeals his two convictions for embezzlement, in violation of Code § 18.2-111, and four convictions of uttering, in violation of Code § 18.”
Bruhn v. Commonwealth, 544 S.E.2d 895 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 12× “During oral argument on the motion, the Commonwealth argued that the evidence at trial proved embezzlement and that the embezzlement statute, Code § 18.2-111, “states that embezzlement shall be deemed larceny.”
George v. Com., 667 S.E.2d 779 (Va. 2008).
· cites it 8× “In this appeal, Francis Habo George asks us to reverse his four felony convictions for embezzlement in violation of Code § 18.2-111. He asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to support those convictions and in refusing to address his…”
Shanessa v. Pittman v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 822 S.E.2d 382 (Va. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 8× “Whether the Evidence Was Sufficient to Convict Pittman of Embezzlement Code § 18.2-111 states, in pertinent part, that “[i]f any person wrongfully and fraudulently use, dispose of, conceal or embezzle any .”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-111(A) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.